ACC2100 · Module 6 · Financial Statement Ratio Analysis
60%
Exercises weight
40%
Performance task weight
undergrad
Degree level
Meets Expectations (90–100%)
Names each ratio by its Module 6 category (Liquidity, Efficiency, Leverage, Profitability, or Cash Flow), references the correct seeded figure, and interprets it in IKEA's context. Recommendation is stated, supported by two categorised ratios, and the named alternative is addressed with specific data. Category labels and ratio terminology from Module 6 appear throughout.
Mostly Meets (80–89%)
Ratio categories referenced correctly for most ratios. Calculations cited accurately. Recommendation stated and supported, but the named alternative is weak or absent. Interpretation stays at the ratio level without connecting to the investor decision.
Somewhat Meets (70–79%)
Ratios referenced but category labels are missing or partially misapplied. Recommendation present but supported by only one ratio or without category classification. Business implication asserted without connecting the figure to the claim.
Does Not Meet (<70%)
No clear recommendation. Ratio categories absent or consistently wrong. Ratios named without figures or interpretation. Response describes the task rather than completing it.
Meets Expectations (90–100%)
Recommendation follows logically from ratio evidence — the leap from figure to investor implication is explicit and sound. Named alternative is countered with at least one specific ratio finding.
Mostly Meets (80–89%)
Logic generally sound but one step in the reasoning chain is asserted rather than explained — e.g., 'this makes IKEA risky' without explaining why the specific figure supports that conclusion.
Somewhat Meets (70–79%)
Conclusion does not follow clearly from the evidence presented, or the evidence used does not directly support the specific recommendation made.
Does Not Meet (<70%)
No logical chain. Statements made without connection to ratio data or analytical evidence.
Meets Expectations (90–100%)
Adds interpretive framing beyond restating ratios — e.g. identifies that two ratios from different categories point in the same direction (reinforcing signal), or notes a tension between a strong profitability figure and a weak liquidity or cash flow figure and resolves it.
Mostly Meets (80–89%)
Provides interpretation beyond calculation but it is generic (e.g. 'a high D/E is risky') rather than specific to IKEA's sector context or the investor's specific position.
Somewhat Meets (70–79%)
Largely restates ratio figures without original analytical framing. Brief reads as a list of results rather than an analytical judgment.
Does Not Meet (<70%)
No contribution beyond what the question prompt itself contains. Response could have been written without engaging with the seeded scenario data.
Canvas import
Canvas does not support direct rubric CSV import. Use this view to manually create the rubric in Canvas, or download the JSON above for programmatic creation via the Canvas API.